Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services (MCRS)

MINUTES

Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services (MCRS)

Customer Experience Advisory Work Team

Thursday February 26, 2015

2:00 p.m.

Teleconference

Members Present: Adam Kaplan, Deanna Middlebrooks, Caryn Pack Ivey, Michael Poyma (Chair), Zach Tomlinson.

Members Excused: Trina Edmondson, Sara Grivetti.

Staff Present: Marlene Malloy, Shori Teeple.

1. The meeting was called to order at 2:03 p.m.

2. The draft agenda was reviewed and approved through consensus of the members.

3. The draft minutes (1/20/15) were reviewed, with support received by consensus of the members.

4. The Draft Dashboards were reviewed. Much progress has been made with the updates. While questions have been asked about metrics, it was restated that the metrics are established by federal laws and regulations.

A. Kaplan’s comments about the Dashboards (regarding a need for consistency and questions about the emphasis on federal mandates) as shared with team via email were restated and discussed during the meeting:

1.2 Why is the target for employment outcomes for BSBP 68.9% and for MRS 55.8%? Do we think that the blind and visually impaired should have roughly 20% higher employment outcomes than other people with disabilities? If yes, why? If not, then we need to fix the targets

1.3 Why is the target for competitive employment double at MRS than BSBP? Do we all believe that only 1/3 of blind people should be expected to work in

competitive employment? That seems quite low to me.

1.4 I question the value of this metric. First of all, a disability is "significant" to the person who has it. Second, it seems that people served will exceed this metric every year. If so, I say let's get rid of it.

2.1 If we are looking at minority background, shouldn't we also look at women? Maybe we integrate minority and / or women into 2.1 or create women metric 2.2

Also, I would compare these metrics against the following: 1) Metrics used to track employment of non-disabled job seekers via mitalent.org or other relevant state sources; 2) Metrics for people with disabilities in comparable states to Michigan (Indiana, Ohio come to find).

It was further stated, that as volunteers of the Council, it’s a privilege to serve in this capacity. With a robust employment market for employers, now is the time we should be placing people with disabilities into jobs.

M. Poyma expressed appreciation for the input and observations, and stated that some may come up for discussion for potential action items for the future. The team was also encouraged to revisit the CE Work Plan to help determine next steps beyond development of the Dashboards. The importance of assuring accessibility to customer data that is easy to review and evaluate was further discussed. Members need to know the data to be able to craft messages of change for recommendations to the service systems.

Other members shared their perspectives about the Dashboards, including that they were easy to read and follow along, as well as the color coding being helpful for evaluation of information purposes.

Several members were also in agreement with comments about the ‘advisory’ capacity of the Council. Similar frustrations were shared with feeling limited in the Council members’ role of having an impact on changes to services for individuals with disabilities. It was suggested that there might be a need for further discussion about new and different ways to impact change; if not on this Council, then approaching it from another method/group.

Other members shared their agreement with these statementsand a need for further discussion about the topics.

5. Work Plan Review

The CE Work Plan was reviewed, with questions asked relating to ‘how does the data relate to the work of the SRC functions?’. More discussion will take place at the March meeting for next steps.

6. Other Business

Other observations and questions were noted about the

Dashboards. It was stated that there is a need for clarity of percentages for the red color. This item was tabled for this meeting and will be addressed next month, along with federal mandates for the team as they relate to the work plan. It was also stated that this work team will likely assume responsibility of managing the MCRS Focus Groups Advisory Work Team once the ad hoc work team has completed its preliminary tasks related to environmental scanning, logistics, and other components to be managed for planning the focus groups.

7. Next Steps

The team will have further discussion about updates still needed for the Dashboards, the work plan will be updated to reflect the mandates that relate to the CE Work Team, and additional discussion will take place about more ways in which the team can work to impact change for customers in its advisory capacity.

8. The meeting was adjourned at 2:28 p.m.

Next Meeting: Tuesday March 17th, 2015 9:30 a.m. in-person at MCRS Office.